Overall sentiment in the reviews for Queen Anne Healthcare is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviews praise nursing care, therapy outcomes, and family communication, while many others allege serious quality and safety problems. Positive reviewers describe attentive, compassionate nurses and therapists who delivered effective physical and occupational therapy, coordinated discharge planning smoothly, and helped residents return home quickly. These reviewers often note clean rooms, comfortable linens, updated furniture in parts of the building, and managers who solve problems and communicate well. In those accounts the facility provided a supportive, home-like environment and a strong rehabilitation experience.
Conversely, a large portion of reviews raise concerning patterns around staffing, basic care, infection control, and management. Frequent complaints include understaffing with high patient-to-staff ratios (reports of 8–10 patients per caregiver), long delays responding to call lights (examples up to 45 minutes), and aides who are distracted, undertrained, or inattentive. Several reviewers allege neglect manifested as poor wound care, development of bedsores, untreated infections (cellulitis leading to sepsis), and repeated hospital transfers. Night-shift competence is specifically questioned in multiple reports. These descriptions point to uneven care quality: while a minority of staff are repeatedly singled out as excellent and caring, other staff are accused of poor morale, insufficient training, and unsafe behavior (sleeping or on phones while on duty).
Facility conditions and cleanliness are likewise reported inconsistently. Some families praise cleanliness, fresh linens, updated furniture, and tidy communal spaces. Others report unsanitary bathrooms, damp linens, unattended spills that remain for days, and an overall run-down appearance with no private rooms. Visitation logistics also drew criticism: limited outdoor visitor protection (wet benches, makeshift seating), restricted visiting during COVID for some, and inconsistent enforcement of privacy and HIPAA standards (misspellings and privacy breaches reported).
Dining and therapy experiences produce divergent views. Many reviewers commend the therapy teams (PT/OT) for helping residents regain mobility, and several credit good meals and solid nutrition. Yet an equal number of comments call out cold food, lack of diabetic-friendly options, no menu alternatives, and missing advertised snacks. Some patients and families view the rehab program as clinically effective and personal; others perceive rehabilitation services as profit-driven and overpriced, prioritizing billable days over patient needs.
Management, communication, and ethical concerns are major recurring themes. Several positive reviews describe responsive leadership and excellent family communication. Opposing this are multiple reports that management is unavailable or unresponsive, calls go unanswered, POA or discharge paperwork is mishandled, and promises are broken. Very serious allegations appear in multiple reviews: coercion or pressure to sign over finances, eviction notices, depletion of funds, disposal of a resident’s belongings including heirlooms, delayed notification of death, and accusations of theft. These are serious legal and ethical claims and, in the reviews, are described as alleged grievances rather than verified facts. There are also claims that some glowing reviews may be fake, reflecting distrust in the facility’s publicly presented rating.
Safety and security concerns appear in several reviews: inadequate supervision leading to falls or unsupervised incidents, flight-risk management questioned, and general nonchalance by some staff members. Simultaneously, other reviewers emphasize strong safety measures and staff who proactively clean hallways and monitor residents. COVID-specific feedback is also mixed: some praise how the facility handled COVID (communication, protocols), while others complain of restricted and uncomfortable visiting setups.
Patterns and recommended precautions: the dominant pattern is variability—care quality appears uneven across shifts, units, and staff. Positive outcomes (good rehab, attentive nursing, smooth discharges) coexist with reports of neglect, infection, billing disputes, and alleged exploitation. Families should treat this mixed picture as a prompt to perform detailed, on-site due diligence: ask about staffing ratios (especially night shift), wound care procedures, infection-control history, medication administration protocols, language capabilities, complaint/incident records, financial/billing policies (bed-hold fees and protections), visitor policies, and documentation procedures for valuables and personal items. Monitor call-light response times, check linens and bathroom cleanliness in person, confirm PT/OT scheduling and goals, and insist on written communication and copies of POA or discharge paperwork.
In summary, Queen Anne Healthcare elicits strong praise from many who experienced excellent nursing and therapy and were satisfied with discharge outcomes and communication. However, a substantial body of reviews reports serious quality, safety, and ethical concerns—understaffing, delayed responses, wound/infection problems, unsanitary conditions, language barriers, and grave allegations about financial coercion and mishandling of a deceased resident’s belongings. These mixed signals suggest the facility may offer very good care in some units or shifts while failing in others. Prospective residents and their families should investigate the specific unit, shifts, and staff they will encounter and verify protections for safety, clinical care, and personal property before proceeding.
